4 ms·

Because that would not reduce code duplication. I don't know if you have ever worked on any of the low-level Linux libraries written in C, but the amount of unn

by zxzax 5y ago

Because that would not reduce code duplication. I don't know if you have ever worked on any of the low-level Linux libraries written in C, but the amount of unnecessary code duplication across them is awful. The standard library features provided by glibc are extremely inadequate for modern applications, every non-trivial C project I've seen starts to include their own private implementations of various C++ things like hashmaps, binary trees, dynamically sized strings, unicode support, async event loops, etc. For utilities that have to interact with low level kernel APIs it's even worse, every library seems to have to reimplement their own parsing of various other random things like netlink, or in the various pseudo filesystems like sysfs, procfs, cgroupfs, etc etc, the situation is really way out of hand. I don't know how to solve this in a reasonable manner beyond what systemd is already doing. Yes people will complain that they have a systemd dependency now but what else can you do? This is the exact reason the BSDs update the kernel, libc, init and core utils in tandem and consider a lot of the kernel API to be private, Linux was just slow to catch on in that regard.

cyberdelica 5y ago
> Because that would not reduce code duplication. I don't want to call you out for making a disingenuous argument, but it was either subsumed by systemd for code duplication reasons, or it wasn't?! Duplicate code, could be refactored out to a shared library, that could then be incorporated in both udev, and systemd. That would mean, anyone looking to incorporate udev into a system, could do so without depending on libsystemd. Instead, it would seem udev code, has been subsumed by libsystemd (in your own words) - which would appear to the sceptical eye, as a power play on the part of red hat - to force other distributions into using libsystemd, which would logically end with them also using systemd itself. > I don't know if you have ever worked on any of the low-level Linux libraries written in C [...] Yes, I have.
- jhasse 5y ago
  > Duplicate code, could be refactored out to a shared library, that could then be incorporated in both udev, and systemd. That's basically what has been done. The library was named libsystemd. You seem to have a problem with the name "libsystemd".
  - cyberdelica 5y ago
    How do you compile udev, without "libsystemd", or without glibc? > You seem to have a problem with the name "libsystemd". Ah, the ad hominem. Do you have a problem with the Unix Philosophy?
    - cwyers 5y ago
      No, you just categorically don't understand. libsystemd is not systemd the init system, it doesn't require systemd to be running, it is simply the name of "the shared library that everything developed under the systemd project uses for common code." Now, you can argue until the cows come home that you'd be happier if udev, systemd, and libredhathatesyou (or some other name for libsystemd that doesn't include systemd in it) were all in different Git repos, but since you can run udev without a dependency on systemd running on the system, that seems like a pretty low-stakes dispute.
      - cyberdelica 5y ago
        > No, you just categorically don't understand. Of course I understand, as do the rest of the people not employed by red hat upvoting me. Time and time again, I've seen systemd advocates making slippery, disingenuous, and outright false arguments. When they're called out on it, the goalposts magically move, a rotation of usernames appear to downvote and brigade which can be ascertained through downvote timing correlation. When they can't win an argument through facts, then they make bogus arguments that one doesn't get it, or some such nonsense - or claim they're a red hat conspiracy monger. Seeing it over and and over again is lame, and played out. Now, why don't you answer the question - if udev was subsumed by "libsystemd" as is claimed due to "code duplication" - then why did they not just include "libudev" as a dependency for "libsystemd"? Of course, the question will never be answered, as it'll reveal the truth.
        cwyers 5y ago
        Because they didn't want to maintain two different libraries? (I don't work for Red Hat. My employer runs mostly Windows boxes. I mostly use Ubuntu when I use Linux.)
- zxzax 5y ago
  The issue is not with the actual udev device event logic itself, but with all the other bits I talked about. Those are the things that would need to be duplicated. >to force other distributions into using libsystemd, which would logically end with them also using systemd itself. As I said elsewhere, libsystemd is just a library with some generic functions provided for convenience. This is like saying that installing python libraries on your system logically means that the PSF is trying to take over your system and forcibly rewrite everything in python, it doesn't make any sense.
  - ticviking 5y ago
    Why can't there be a libredhat that provide these things to the community with a stable interface? Lots of communities manage to have widely used data-structure and algorithm libraries that aren't closely in the same repo as other unrelated projects, is there some special problem with this kind of systems programming that prevents that?
    - zxzax 5y ago
      Does it really make a difference whether it's called libsystemd or something else? If you're talking about the other functionality that's private and unstable, it's not included in a separate library for exactly that reason: it's considered private and unstable (Also I'm not sure if you're joking with that name but I really doubt there would ever be something like this literally called "libredhat," that makes about as much sense as putting a random b-tree implementation in a library called libubuntu or a libgentoo).
      - ticviking 5y ago
        >Does it really make a difference whether it's called libsystemd or something else? Probably not. But when I think of something named "libsystemd" I think of a library to interact with systemd, not a collection of random hashmap and B-tree implementations. > If you're talking about the other functionality that's private and unstable Why would I talk about factoring out private and unstable code into a shared library. But if udev is depending on that private and unstable code I do have a lot more sympathy for the packagers who are wary of the merger. It's kind of disengenuois to claim that they're totally separate projects, and can reliably be deployed separately when they both depend on some private special sauce. Even if the sauce is open sourced. > Also I'm not sure if you're joking with that name Half a joke and half trying to avoid the "I hate the name" problem. You have clarified a little bit of what that library is actually doing. And why it seems to make sense to have udev pick up the dependency. Thank you.

by zxzax 5y ago

cyberdelica 5y ago

> Because that would not reduce code duplication. I don't want to call you out for making a disingenuous argument, but it was either subsumed by systemd for code duplication reasons, or it wasn't?! Duplicate code, could be refactored out to a shared library, that could then be incorporated in both udev, and systemd. That would mean, anyone looking to incorporate udev into a system, could do so without depending on libsystemd. Instead, it would seem udev code, has been subsumed by libsystemd (in your own words) - which would appear to the sceptical eye, as a power play on the part of red hat - to force other distributions into using libsystemd, which would logically end with them also using systemd itself. > I don't know if you have ever worked on any of the low-level Linux libraries written in C [...] Yes, I have.

jhasse 5y ago
> Duplicate code, could be refactored out to a shared library, that could then be incorporated in both udev, and systemd. That's basically what has been done. The library was named libsystemd. You seem to have a problem with the name "libsystemd".
- cyberdelica 5y ago
  How do you compile udev, without "libsystemd", or without glibc? > You seem to have a problem with the name "libsystemd". Ah, the ad hominem. Do you have a problem with the Unix Philosophy?
  - cwyers 5y ago
    No, you just categorically don't understand. libsystemd is not systemd the init system, it doesn't require systemd to be running, it is simply the name of "the shared library that everything developed under the systemd project uses for common code." Now, you can argue until the cows come home that you'd be happier if udev, systemd, and libredhathatesyou (or some other name for libsystemd that doesn't include systemd in it) were all in different Git repos, but since you can run udev without a dependency on systemd running on the system, that seems like a pretty low-stakes dispute.
    - cyberdelica 5y ago
      > No, you just categorically don't understand. Of course I understand, as do the rest of the people not employed by red hat upvoting me. Time and time again, I've seen systemd advocates making slippery, disingenuous, and outright false arguments. When they're called out on it, the goalposts magically move, a rotation of usernames appear to downvote and brigade which can be ascertained through downvote timing correlation. When they can't win an argument through facts, then they make bogus arguments that one doesn't get it, or some such nonsense - or claim they're a red hat conspiracy monger. Seeing it over and and over again is lame, and played out. Now, why don't you answer the question - if udev was subsumed by "libsystemd" as is claimed due to "code duplication" - then why did they not just include "libudev" as a dependency for "libsystemd"? Of course, the question will never be answered, as it'll reveal the truth.
      - cwyers 5y ago
        Because they didn't want to maintain two different libraries? (I don't work for Red Hat. My employer runs mostly Windows boxes. I mostly use Ubuntu when I use Linux.)
zxzax 5y ago
The issue is not with the actual udev device event logic itself, but with all the other bits I talked about. Those are the things that would need to be duplicated. >to force other distributions into using libsystemd, which would logically end with them also using systemd itself. As I said elsewhere, libsystemd is just a library with some generic functions provided for convenience. This is like saying that installing python libraries on your system logically means that the PSF is trying to take over your system and forcibly rewrite everything in python, it doesn't make any sense.
- ticviking 5y ago
  Why can't there be a libredhat that provide these things to the community with a stable interface? Lots of communities manage to have widely used data-structure and algorithm libraries that aren't closely in the same repo as other unrelated projects, is there some special problem with this kind of systems programming that prevents that?
  - zxzax 5y ago
    Does it really make a difference whether it's called libsystemd or something else? If you're talking about the other functionality that's private and unstable, it's not included in a separate library for exactly that reason: it's considered private and unstable (Also I'm not sure if you're joking with that name but I really doubt there would ever be something like this literally called "libredhat," that makes about as much sense as putting a random b-tree implementation in a library called libubuntu or a libgentoo).
    - ticviking 5y ago
      >Does it really make a difference whether it's called libsystemd or something else? Probably not. But when I think of something named "libsystemd" I think of a library to interact with systemd, not a collection of random hashmap and B-tree implementations. > If you're talking about the other functionality that's private and unstable Why would I talk about factoring out private and unstable code into a shared library. But if udev is depending on that private and unstable code I do have a lot more sympathy for the packagers who are wary of the merger. It's kind of disengenuois to claim that they're totally separate projects, and can reliably be deployed separately when they both depend on some private special sauce. Even if the sauce is open sourced. > Also I'm not sure if you're joking with that name Half a joke and half trying to avoid the "I hate the name" problem. You have clarified a little bit of what that library is actually doing. And why it seems to make sense to have udev pick up the dependency. Thank you.